Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 29	October 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Observance of Christmas by country#Uzbekistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in Uzbekistan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article with little substantial information. Nothing that can't be added to the Uzbekistan section of the Observance of Christmas by country article. ~ Mooonswimmer 23:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way. By the same logic, another article I created, namely Navruz in Uzbekistan should also be deleted. But the fact that an article is a stub isn't grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and the content is long enough to warrant a stand alone article. I'm rather busy these days, but the article could cover Christmas celebrations in Uzbek SSR and post-soviet Uzbekistan. There's a wealth of information on the topic in Russian and Uzbek. Nataev ^talk 03:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should've worded my rationale better. I commend your work on Uzbekistan-related articles and appreciate what you do. It's never fun nominating articles that someone obviously invested their time into for deletion.

What is the logic you are referring to? I didn't really mention anything about the article being a stub. There is quite a difference between Navruz in Uzbekistan, which contains a considerable amount of information pertinent to Nawruz in Uzbekistan/post-soviet Central Asia (which is often cited as the most popular holiday in the region), and Christmas in Uzbekistan, where the entirety of the article can be summed up into three or four sentences, since Christmas in the country simply isn't widely celebrated (due to the demographic and historical reasons mentioned in the article). ~ Mooonswimmer 04:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've merged the entry into the main article and created a redirect. Canada doesn't seem to have its own article on Christmas celebrations there, so we can forget about Muslim Uzbekistan. Nataev ^talk 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Observance of Christmas by country. Article doesn't look like it can be expanded upon too much, but the content shouldn't be deleted. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uzbekistan. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine for me (the page author merged it himself before the end of discussion). --Suitskvarts (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this doing at AfD, which stands for "articles for deletion", not "articles for merging"? The creator was happy to merge it and the nominator wanted it merged rather than deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article's content has since been merged; changing my vote to make this page a Redirect to the appropriate section on Observance of Christmas by country. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Observance of Christmas by country#Uzbekistan per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Chun-chi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOLYMPICS. A WP:BEFORE didn't show me much other than what it mentioned on the Wikipedia article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yang Chun-chi (楊鈞芪) (pinyin Yang Junqi) is now an archery coach. She coaches archers such as Lin Chia-en, and is frequently mentioned in the press in connection to the Taiwan archery team. A good example of this is the 2021 Era News interview where she discusses Lin, who was the only female archer from Taiwan to advance to the top 16 at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics (it even includes a photo of Yang wearing a face mask). However, these aren't really articles about Yang herself. Because Yang was competing in the 1996 Olympics, it is possible that more coverage about her exists in Taiwanese newspapers and magazines from that period, which have not been digitized. But given the fact that Yang does not have a Chinese language Wikipedia page, I believe it is "safe" to delete this one in English. (And if additional coverage appears in the future discussing Yang's contribution both as an athlete and as a coach...the information in the article now could be easily recreated; her Olympedia page is now archived here.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per convincing argument advanced above by Cielquiparle. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Montgomery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think he passes WP:GNG. The references in the article are self-published, essentially self-published (things like PR.com and abnewswire.com), interviews, listings of his album on Deezer, Amazon and soundcloud. Others are from blogs or other sources of questionable quality. There's no evidence that any of his books or albums are notable. In any case, I can't find significant, reliable third-party coverage that an article could be built on. Pichpich (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Pichpich (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also didn't find anything notable here. Also searched under Jay Monty and there another Jay Monty appeared.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom provides good analysis of the sources presented in the article. I can't find anything significant and 3rd party. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in terms of independent, reliable sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG Devoke water 18:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject spectacularly fails notability requirements. Step by step we move. -The Gnome (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoLi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to say exactly how much this meets WP:COMPOSER. I definitely didn't see SIGCOV so that's off the table, but with their sole notable writing credit on "Everything Is Awesome" they pass clause one ("Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition."). The song also meets multiple parts of WP:MUSICBIO (charting, certs, Grammy nom, etc.) and the duo might also count as "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" (although I think the notability of at least one of them is also highly questionable, possibly both), but I'm not sure if those guidelines apply here since they're only songwriters/producers in this duo even though they're also performing musicians in their individual work. It all feels too reliant on the one song credit to be anything but a stretch, but it looks like their non-notability is less obvious than what I immediately thought. QuietHere (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also started an AfD on Lisa Harriton. If that clears then we can definitely take "independently notable musicians" off the table. Not starting one on Joshua Bartholomew because the coverage on him might be just enough to scrape by, but if anyone else wants to take a second look at that page that would be appreciated (and if you start an AfD or PROD based on that then please let me know here, thanks). QuietHere (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had a second look and never mind, Bartholomew doesn't look so good either. AfD here. QuietHere (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two references for the Everything Is Awesome songwriting credit mention Joshua and Lisa personally, but I didn't see any mention of the entity JoLi. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having a lot of questions about the usage of YouTube as a source. I can't confidently provide an opinion on notability, as though they did write Everything is Awesome, was it just a one-hit wonder? My best idea right now is to maybe merge with Everything is Awesome. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text represents one more typical and, by now, quite common, attempt to hype up an otherwise obscure and certainly not wikinotable subject. Discarding the overkill of YouTube clips unacceptably deployed as sources, all we're left with are routine listings of gigs and releases, such as this. Purely promotional stuff. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is kind of a weird one, on multiple levels. Setting aside the notability of the individual artists, I cannot find a single mention in any of the sources that they are professionally credited as "JoLi." Unless I missed something, "JoLi" isn't on the text of any of the cited sources. Outside of wiki mirrors, the only things that come up for me are their personal website ([1]), a profile on a commercial site they're involved with ([2]), and a passing mention in an interview with an online magazine ([3]). In fact, the oldest reference I can find that they go by this name is...this very Wikipedia page (OK, fine, and whatever this is [4], but that's definitely not a source). It seems worth noting that this doesn't appear to be some invented fan term or anything, because as of 2017 and 2018 it starts appearing in places like Shazam and Spotify—I'm guessing they (re)named themselves, but I can't find any coverage of it. Still, I'm not convinced we should be covering them under a name reliable sources aren't using.

The creator of this article, User:Halle Leah, has almost exclusively edited pages related to this topic; this page, the pages of Lisa Harriton and Joshua Bartholomew (the latter of which they also created), a few minor edits to other composers, and some edits to Everything is Awesome and The Lego Movie specifically about this composition. I strongly suspect a COI here (especially when combined with the fact that this editor seems to have been the first person to use the name "JoLi" or "Jo Li"). I've placed a disclosure request on their talk page, but given they haven't edited since 2017 (and were mostly active in 2015), I don't expect an answer.

Obviously the YouTube citations should go no matter what, but they also aren't needed to support any page contents; they're a misuse of citations to create an exhaustive list of promotional material for The Lego Movie where the song was played. I went ahead and removed them from the page.

Anyways all the weirdness aside, the group JoLi as a duo seems to be essentially unmentioned in reliable sources and thus do not meet WP:GNG. The Grammy nomination (WP:MUSICBIO #8) names them individually ([5]) and this is a guideline which establishes artists which may be notable. Since usually a delete vote carries with it an implication of being open to most ATDs, I should note I don't think there should be a redirect here either, since the name doesn't appear to be established by reliable sources. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that this Toronto Star article from February 2015 does mention "Jo Li" (with a space): [6]; it seems like the style change was from Jo Li to JoLi (though still haven't found any source stating that, and they weren't credited either way on Everything is Awesome). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom gtgamer79 (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not address the musicians using the moniker "JoLi". This is essentially WP:OR. Further, this is an un-necessary WP:FORK as we already cover both of these musicians and their work in articles on them individually. If we had better sourcing on the musicians as a duo we could have an article, but as it is, deletion is the only option.4meter4 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZynAddSubFX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software Mooonswimmer 22:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There does appear to be some solid independent coverage in google books. Mooonswimmer, did you check those sources in a WP:BEFORE search?4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This used to be one of the most commonly used software synths in the Linux pro audio community - as 4meter4 says, Google Books turns up a number of "making music with open source software" kind of sources that describe it from 10-odd years ago. These days people are more likely to use Yoshimi (synthesizer), which is an extended derivative of ZynAddSubFX. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Does have sources like [7] this and others Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. the one linked by Suryabeej does seem to have significant coverage. I am hoping that other sources (perhaps offline) exist to make this notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did find a few papers discussing it and a paragraph in Linux Journal which I know aren't the most in-depth sources ever, but they're not trivial either. Given that a lot of the example usages in papers and books I could find were from the early 2000s, I suspect that a lot of the reliable sources that would have existed are now offline or are otherwise not indexed by search engines like Google. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Gawali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Current ref might not be reliable with no editorial policies, and could fall under WP:BLP1E. A WP:BEFORE found promotional and routine announcements, 1 (routine "Partnered Content"), 2 (almost entirely interview-like quotes, only 138 words without quotes), 3 (promotional, non-RS), 4 (promo and routine). After my PROD User:Ddfdfgsdffdg deprodded with the rationale different person, but did not improve the article or provide additional sources. VickKiang (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can't find much news references about them that they pass WP:GNG 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:BLP1E, indeed. --Suitskvarts (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Contributor008 (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even worthy to encyclopedia. It needs to be deleted immediately because it fails WP:GNG. It contains only one non reliable reference.Kasar Wuya (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No any Deepth Covrage WP:SIGCOV do not meet WP:GNG. D 🐕 B 🦇K🐞 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even searching for his name in Hindi, हर्ष गवली, doesn't turn up more than the flood work (likely WP:BLP1E) or his modeling/fitness tips (promotional/non-independent). There's a cricketer with the same name who turns up more coverage, but I don't see any indication that they're the same person. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus George

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player who fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RLN. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hoare (rugby league, born 1985)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player who fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RLN. LibStar (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trying to find sources for this individual is a little complicated by the existence of Sam Hoare (rugby league, born 1991), another Rugby League player, with the exact same name and close age (therefore returning any coverage from the same period). With that said, I have not been able to locate anything which asserts notability for the player for which this AfD was raised. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Glossary of Islam#B. ✗plicit 14:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basirah

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current article is just a dictionary-style stub with poor sourcing. More (middling) sources are out there, but they also treat "basirah" as a word to be defined. I'd suggest a merge, but there's already a sufficient definition at List of Islamic terms in Arabic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Glossary_of_Islam#B and then remove the hyperlink there. --Suitskvarts (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a redirect to Glossary of Islam#B. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Zeb Khan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A model from Pakistan with who won a "best male model" award in 2008. But he fails all criteria of WP:NMODEL.

He has not had any significant shows. Indeed, the article describes him taking time off to go to university (but not graduate).
He has not made unique or innovative contributions. A source cited in the article does verify the 2008 award, but states:
"... Ameer Zeb Khan has done few memorable campaigns. Models like Rizwan did better work in 2007, are versatile and also far more recognizable than Ameer Zeb. This was a category where one could clearly think of far more deserved winners."[8]
Clearly this person does not meet notability guidelines. Senator2029 【talk】 13:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Pakistan. Senator2029 【talk】 13:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized there was a previous deletion discussion, and reading through it I'm surprised this article was kept. Being famous or popular is insufficient to keep, even if we had substantial sources saying so (which we don't). He won a "people's choice" award for best male model, but the "gaze of fashion" is ephemeral thus even less of a reason to keep. Senator2029 【talk】 13:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find anymore RS and the sources cited in the article are not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The Ref.3 is an interview hence not reliable. The subject won a notable award, but lacks a basic significant coverage. Insight 3 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see many RS, the brief mentions found are, well, brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sources not visible on this page , Cannot pass WP:RS he is not a notable Model in wikipedia guideline WP:Gng. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability + promo style. --Suitskvarts (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotechnology UAB

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refbombed to death (over 50 references for this semi-stub, 11 references for a single event), highly promotional article for a company that is not notable per WP:NCORP. I'd have fancied a G11 but thought AfD safer. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Lithuania. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandermcnabb, thank you for reviewing this page, and for exercising an AfD rather than G11. Following your feedback, I have reviewed the use of references and removed product information as this was too promotional. Thanks for your help in keeping wiki a great source of information for all, have a nice day :) Sdcjeff (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Original Author)

The article has been comprehensively rewritten, to give more detail about what makes the company notable (provider of biometrics for national elections, and the largest biometric ID scheme in the world). Feedback taken on board regarding refbombing, will keep in mind for future edits. @Alexandermcnabb please could you re-review the page when you are able to? Thank you ~~~~ Sdcjeff (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is notable per noms. It's a scientific research company and featured in scientific journals and magazine.Kasar Wuya (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you point to just one or two specific references, be they scientific journals or magazines or otherwise, that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability, particularly with emphasis on in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't look like we have the material to meet the necessary standard for articles on corporations here. The only bit that isn't fluff and/or cruft (Researchers ... used genetic algorithms to create synethetic [sic] irises to fool the image similarity systems used in the VeriEye iris recognition system...) would be better off rewritten in an article about the technology, like biometrics or an offshoot thereof. XOR'easter (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (COI: original author) Many of the sources found were in their native Lithuanian or other languages, such as this French Le Soir article about the Congo elections which sadly I do not understand well enough to judge whether they are puff press releases or suitable sources. In terms of English sources, whilst many of the more notable references such as the Guardian only briefly mention the company and product, I would judge these to represent greater than trivial coverage from these sources. If the decision is not currently notable, I would appreciate draftying and appealing to Lithuanian speaking editors to improve sourcing of notability. Kind regards Sdcjeff (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references provide in-depth independent content about the company and therefore this topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Tinoco

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously nominated for deletion in 2018 and nothing has changed since that nomination, which closed as 'delete'. That nomination read: "It feels too soon. Role in a netflix original, without much else. None of the listed sources are reliable as far as I can tell. Article departs no real information." and I can only add that he still, with no more notable roles than last time, continues to fail WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It might have been a case of WP:TOOSOON in 2018 given the subject only had one significant role at that time, but with the role in the film, R#J, there is now enough to get over WP:NACTOR. In terms of WP:GNG, the article contains a couple of Deadline sources, and there are some Hollywood Reporter sources (here and here) which could be added to the article, and which, in combination, demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. I agree that the article's creator was certainly on the front foot here, but I don't actually think this is an instance of WP:TOOSOON—not anymore, anyway. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holthaus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no clear claim of notability. Article says he has a weather service and he writes stuff, but no indication the service, or his writings are successful or significant. Rob (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's one thing I wish everyone bringing up an AfD would remember is that per our Deletion Guidelines, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." This means that even if the article is lacking info or citations or a clear claim of notability, that proves nothing b/c notability is tied in with the subject, not the article. The subject of this article has a ton of coverage of his career, including profiles and coverage in Rolling Stone (Meet Eric Holthaus, the Rebel Nerd of Meteorology), Columbia Journalism Review (Eric Holthaus on how meteorology can support journalism), Business Insider, and other places. He's also quoted and/or interviewed as a climate change expert in a number of articles, such as by Vice, Canary Media, CNBC, Science Friday, and Reuters. In addition, his writings have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Undark, America Magazine, and many more places (and that's not even including other articles that reference his books, such as this Publishers Weekly article). Finally, a direct search on his name in the Wikipedia LIbrary turns up 629 articles and references, which is good proof that his work is being cited and mentioned by others. All of that means the subject easily meets the notability guidelines for people.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG even with the sources in the article, rest above are gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since the nomination doesn't give a valid rationale for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I agree with Smartse that this nomination is premised on invalid ground. Aside that (serious deficiency) the assertion that no "clear claim of notability" exists in the article is itself wrong! The Article's inclusion of reliable secondary sources that verify the subject's notability is, in itself, a credible claim of significance and constitutes an additional major flaw with this nomination. The third strike (and, perhaps, the most untenable) was the nominator's lack of due diligence wp:before the nomination which self-evidently was not performed (the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is too readily available and easily found to conclude otherwise).--John Cline (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's not eligible for a Soft Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanjh Lobongo Phool

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG.Adibens (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Adibens (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable serial. 223.223.141.115 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't really see much sources that prove its notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also considering how long this has been going on for it's probably best for a soft delete. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Maharaja Bir Bikram University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Bikram Memorial College

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution, no evidence of notability per WP:NSCHOOL. Proposing redirection to the affiliating university Maharaja Bir Bikram University, or deletion as a second option. WP:PROD was rejected so need to go through AfD. Muhandes (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

soft delete According to me we should promote education but any college promoting itself in the name of education is not right then yaha is not right by looking at this page it seems that it is a private college but there is no such reference in it so that it is a notable college. Lionfox0909 (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lionfox0909, if you looked at the page history, you'd quickly see that soft deletion is not possible. Please review WP:NOQUORUM to better understand when Soft Deletion is appropriate or possible. You've been an editor for 3 days. I think you need to learn more about deletion policy before diving into AFD participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionfox0909: Also note that I did not propose deletion, I proposed redirection. Of course, you can vote to delete anyway, but as Liz said, soft deletion is not an option. --Muhandes (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested; this is generally the best course of action for affiliated colleges. Mccapra (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Partition of Gyeonggi Province. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Gyeonggi Province

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is a proposed (currently non-existent) political division, article content is duplicated from Gyeonggi Province, this subject should be covered by Partition of Gyeonggi Province and does not warrant a separate article at this time. See also WP:Articles for deletion/South Gyeonggi Province. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Partition of Gyeonggi Province for the sake of interlang links. --Suitskvarts (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Demon Artist, Kazuma Kaneko

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is a duplicate of Kazuma Kaneko. I appreciate a lot of work has been put into this version, but it isn't clear that the title "The Demon Artist" is widely used as a formal title for this person by secondary sources. That the title is a moniker that is sometimes paired with his name doesn't seem enough to me. For instance, the Megami Tensei wiki does not mention the title, and does not use it to refer to the artist, which suggests to me that this isn't the best way to refer to the person. This is the first time I've attempted to do the deletion process, so thanks for your patience if this is a bit clunky, and thanks also in advance for your thoughts on this. Vrxces (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Vrxces (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As WP:A10. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- After checking it more, I suggest a history merge with the original article instead, it appears to be a cut and paste move and expansion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Vrxces: I suggest withdrawing this Afd and requesting a history merge for the page instead. If the creator has an issue with the name they can go to WP:RM but that will almost certainly fail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree, merging is also a good way. However I don't understand why the user duplicated the article and even tried to redirect the original article to the one he/she created. Timothytyy (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Timothytyy: I assume they are a new editor who is unfamiliar with the ability to move pages, naming protocols, or the idea of WP:CONSENSUS. They attempted to do a cut and paste move to a name they thought was better but which goes against the need for conciseness. Of course, we do not name articles of people after their best known trait, such as "The Undertale developer, Toby Fox". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zxcvbnm. Merging can also be possible. And why is there a redirect in Kazuma Kaneko? Kazuma Kaneko is a better title for the article. Timothytyy (Talk) 08:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback. I'm having trouble merging the page to the original article hence the reason for the different title. I apologize and I'm working on getting things fixed. Unclebenny 713 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and hist merge per Zxc. Original creator is a student editor through a WikiEdu course who appears to have made a good-faith but incorrect c&p move to change the title. The fastest solution is for @Vrxces: to withdraw the nom so a histmerge can take place (which is not allowed while AFD is still open). We shouldn't have to wait 7 days for the AFD to close to fix this. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gladwin (cricketer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chris Gladwin (cricketer)

The only reference for this biography of a living person is a database entry, which is no longer considered sufficient to establish sports notability or general notability. This article does not mention significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards keep - there are other references available online at regional press outlets (here, for example) and it's possible to verify everything in the article I think. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be plenty in offline sources - Wisden, Essex, Derbyshire and Suffolk local press from the 80s, little of which will be online. I'll try the Times archive later if I get the chance, which may throw up things and if no one else does so, I'll add refs into the article. At the very worst this would be a redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players (to G) with a note added to summarise his career. This is a long established WP:ATD (policy, not guideline) that has consensus across AtD discussions from at least 2018 onwards. I may return to this discussion to add more details when I've had a chance to have a further look. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BST as there will be adequate coverage in Wisden and Playfair at least; possibly ESPN might have something too. Certainly his notability cannot be in question as he played for several years with three first-class counties and then became a qualified coach. It is a question of BLP sourcing per the banner there. Article also needs an infobox and copyediting. I haven't time now but will happily do those later. BoJó | talk UTC 09:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an infobox. I'll do some tidying up next and create some structure. We can then see what is needed and find the sources. As it happens, I don't have any Playfairs for the 1980s so I'd appreciate help with those as Chris must have had coverage in all of them. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 10:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has shape now but there's work to be done on his playing career which needs copyediting first and then some expansion. The most important thing there will be non-database sources, although it's fine to reference an occasional scorecard, as when he made his 162 and perhaps the match against the West Indians. Playfair is needed, plus any useful mentions in Wisden. Anything else from BST in the press archives will be a great help. BoJó | talk UTC 11:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 71 first-class appearances? This is becoming a little silly. Sometimes you have to wonder how much work the nominator has put into finding secondary sources - or indeed how they came about the article in the first place. I can't believe there is a cricketer with 71 first-class appearances and no "significant coverage" - I still don't know or particularly care what that means when all it seems to be is an excuse to delete cricketers with 71 first-class appearances. Bobo . 10:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, there are 25 first-class cricketers for Essex alone whose surnames only begin with A or B whose only references/external links come from Cricinfo and/or Cricketarchive. If these conversations are going to happen another 25 times because someone with no connection to or knowledge of the sport finds them seemingly at random(?), I'm already tired. Bobo . 10:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that coverage exists, what is or isn't cited in the article is not the determiner of notability. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without too much effort, I've expanded the article from 185 words with one external link to 732 words with five cited sources and one new external link. There are definitely more sources out there. The 1990 edition of Playfair will certainly have a full career summary but I don't have access to it and there will definitely be more mentions in Wisden, especially the 1985 edition. That is before we think about various news items and county coverage. The expansion of this article today shows how easily cricket biographies can meet SIGCOV with just a little research and effort. BoJó | talk UTC 21:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And with a career of significant length, there will doubtless be lots out there to find in both online and offline sources. The fact that the nominating user in question states what the article currently contains makes it sound like they have made no effort in attempting to find, or enquiring whether there may be, anything more to add. Bobo . 04:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a poor article, but one should first look to how it might be improved, and only if that is not possible nominate it for deletion. The article has now been greatly expanded, with multiple sources showing that Gladwin was clearly notable. JH (talk page) 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following expansion it's clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Would clearly seem to have played regularly at first class level and is thus notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jones (Missouri politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the requirements of WP:NPOLITICIAN, has yet to be elected to a notable position. Noting Wikipedia is not for posting profiles of aspiring politicians. Dan arndt (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Dan arndt (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: — This article about Andrew Jones (Missouri politician) is necessary to understand what happened in the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. In the course of authoring this article, I learned that Jones is running for yet another office (this one: 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Missouri#District 1). I certainly hope that Cori Bush beats him (and it looks like she will, per ^{Silver, Nate (2022-06-30). "2022 House Forecast". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2022-10-23.}), but there is plenty of precedent for challengers nominated by Republicans or the Democrats to have articles (see 2022 United States House of Representatives elections). I'll grant you I have my biases (which I share on my conflict-of-interest page), but really, I'm trying to learn about that 2021 St. Louis mayoral election myself. It would seem that there may be editors on this wiki trying to obfuscate what happened in 2021 (e.g. given how events played out for Lewis E. Reed after the election, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd prefer to lay low). I would appreciate the opportunity to expand the article about Mr. Jones prior to seeing the article deleted. Moreover, it seems that Wikipedia has a pro-incumbent bias, where the only way to gain notability is to hold office already. Most of the people running in the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election can cite their incumbency as justification for having articles. Let's not be so quick to delete articles of minority candidates like Andrew Jones this as "non-notable". Not all of the biographical articles on Wikipedia need to be about white dudes. -- RobLa (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RobLa: - the argument that it should be retained just because other stuff exists is not a valid or legitimate reason for the article to be retained. The requirements for WP:NPOL apply to ensure that Wikipedia is not littered with articles on political nominees, which by your preceding statement he is unlikely to ever achieve a notable political office. I'd suggest that this either be moved to a draft until such time as you can find significant coverage about Mr. Jones, outside of his running for political office, or that you expand the article on the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. 07:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete @RobLa: I recommend that any relevant information about the subject be included in the articles for the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election and 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Missouri#District 1. Those pages are appropriate to include more verifiable details about challengers and I think, in general, the election pages do not do a good job of explaining how a race unfolds (just lets put in rumors of potential candidates, who actually qualifies for the ballot, add in a few polls and notable endorsements, and results - poof done), when I think there is a lot that can be fleshed out in the prose. I think this is especially true for elections that are not "first past the post" districts or where political parties (in the US), go all in in a district for the first time in a while. But I digress, the article should be deleted because the subject does not pass WP:GNG and there is no ideal redirect target. --Enos733 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this demonstrates neither that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of unsuccessful election candidacies nor that he would have a credible claim to his candidacies being special cases of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. If the election itself needs more context, then the place for that context is in the election article, not in standalone BLPs of unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded "Keep" in here. Could the editors consider the possibility of Draftifying or a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a politician and not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. However if you'd like this in draft space @Anarchyte: until such time as notability is more clear, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 02:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonhos tomam conta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stretching for notability with these current sources. Vulture only mentions sonhos once in passing. Paste is about the split album but doesn't really talk about sonhos as an artist. Sputnik is a staff review but I've always found the website somewhat questionable and I wouldn't feel comfortable counting it for notability. Stereogum discusses the album as a Parannoul project that happens to have two other artists on it which feels too dismissive to count. And the Musica Instantanea might just be press release rewrites; I also can't speak to the reliability of that website as I've never seen it before and it's only used on one other EN WP article (The Smile's "Pana-vision"; see here). Didn't find any additional coverage and this doesn't meet anything else on WP:MUSICBIO. I could see her meeting notability some day in the future but I don't think she's there yet. QuietHere (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. QuietHere (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep - I think the combination of all the sourcing leads to weak notability. It definitely could be stronger, but the split EP reviews along with Sputnik (listed as reliable on WP:A/S) combined with passing mentions in articles completely unrelated to her ([9]) lead me to believe that the article meets GNG, but only just. Disclosure: I created the article. Anarchyte (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This musician's only coverage of note is brief mentions in magazines about appearing in the sort-of-supergroup that also contains Parannoul and Asian Glow. As stated by the nominator, the musician herself is never discussed in any detail beyond being listed as a participant in that collaborative album. Her other releases have received no coverage of their own, and her music is only visible in the usual streaming and social media directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON at best. Fails WP:SINGER and WP:N, no significant coverage whatsoever, just passing citations. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom gtgamer79 (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolga Akcay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first source for this stub is a site called “Vanity Stardom’. Other than that we have the subject’s own ebooks and various other unreliable sources. This is a piece of promotional spam. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator now blocked as a sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not much of anything, I don't find any others. 14:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Seems to be a man doing his job. No significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep I don't see a consensus emerging not to retain the content. Star Mississippi 02:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezequiel Paraguassu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the basis of the Ezequiel choke (added) - I'm assuming that Brazilian sources have yet to be checked. Ingratis (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- alternatively, Redirect - see my further comment below. Ingratis (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - WP:NOLYMPICS tells us that an Olympian in individual sports are likely notable with significant coverage. I'm willing to make that presumption in this case, but better sourcing is def needed. Not non-RSs like the ones that were being used. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOLYMPICS tells us that an individual is likely to be notable with significant coverage if they have won a medal, Paraguassu did not win a medal. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has versions in other languages. The Russian and Spanish look much more thorough, although I don't see many sources there. --Suitskvarts (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as to sources in other Wikis:

Norwegian bokmål - Olympedia, sports-reference, JudoInside;
Spanish - sports-reference, JudoInside, BBJ Heroes;
Russian - sports-reference, JudoInside, BBJ Heroes, judokai.net

Most are the sort of databases which seem now to be discounted, and I couldn't access judokai.net, so I didn't add them, but I did add BBJ Heroes ("ju-jitsu encylopedia"), which the next editor removed again, and have also added another, which I don't doubt will also be removed. There will be more in the specialist literature but I haven't been able to locate it so if no more sources appear then Redirect (WP:ATD, either to Brazil at the 1992 Summer Olympics or - probably better - to Sode guruma jime. Ingratis (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only online source I could find about him in Portuguese is this one at the Confederação Brasileira de Judô's site. However, I could find some offline citations about him in books and in magazines, including the Placar, an important sports' magazine in Brazil. Olympic athletes are normally notable in Brazil, but Paraguassu's era was before the internet. We don't have an article about him at the Pt.WP, but based on what I found in a quick research, I believe he's likely notable enough to pass WP:MINIMUM. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think the best target is Sode guruma jime, but Judo at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's 78 kg is also reasonable. At this time I'm not seeing evidence of the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and his 18th place finish at the Olympics isn't enough to show notability. While I don't see enough for a standalone article, I do think there's plenty to justify a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd say the Ezekiel Choke reference in the article is sigcov, and it seems likely that there is offline coverage as well, per Kacamata. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the one article, but "seems likely" doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. Please let me know if additional sources are found. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naked (production company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only sources are press releases discussing the merger with Boundless (production company), which is also currently at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United Kingdom. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing the creation and merger of this and another subsidiary unit, which is also covered in one table line at Fremantle (company), and the various productions through this subsidiary are summarised at List of Fremantle productions. I am not seeing evidence that it has distinct notability; the coverage under these articles on the parent company seems sufficient. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though Naked's fore-runner (Naked Entertainment) seems to have been behind some well known UK television programmes, I'm struggling to find much about them that is not a slightly reworded press release, or anything in non-broadcasting industry media. The new iteration is a very new company, so this appears to be WP:TOOSOON. As a caveat, a search for "Naked" online can produce some questionable results at the best of times, but I'd be surprised if someone can come up with something to convince me to keep this article at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Toshakhana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toshakhana reference

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This trial fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources and only a few Google search results. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Toshakhana. Insight 3 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to SmartBus or a section thereof. There is consensus that sourcing isn't sufficient nor independent to establish notability for the bus. Star Mississippi 02:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

903 (PTV Bus)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a bus route does not have the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The use of this bus route for locally made electric buses garnered some coverage, but it is more about electric buses than the route. Whpq (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your edits made here are clearly unconstructive it will be best for this page if you leave it alone. You will be welcomed to give it edits that will improve this page. The afd will be replaced with an afi as judged by your last edit your clear goal to to delete this page NotOrrio (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an appropriate or effective way of trying to establish WP:Consensus, if this is too personal for you it might be best to take a step back and return with a clearer head. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Went though the sources and checked them out. I would say this appears to be almost notable but I'm honestly on the fence.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Department of Transport	Government Website	Government Website	~ Only notes that the line is there and a quick blur about it and the other lines	~ Partial
The Driven	Coverage of this article and of others appears to be independent. There is invited content but it's labeled and there is a transparent policy on this as well as the cost for advertising in their newsletter	Most coverage on the site is reviews about EVs but there are also articles with coverage on topics around EVs and the community	The article is only about the bus route and the electric buses on it	✔ Yes
Kinetic	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Although there is talk about them taking over the bus system there is no mention of the line	✘ No
Public Transport Victoria	Government Website	Government Website	~ The information it provides is accurate but it is not targeted at this line or a group of lines near it	~ Partial
Moovit	~ Mobility as a service company owned by intel, reposting public information	? Can't really tell other than this is just the site for an app	Page is only coverage of the 903 route	? Unknown
Australasian Bus and Coach	Appears to be an industry publication but other articles appear balanced	Includes a named author and interviews with the managing director of Transdev	~ This one was hard, the main topic is the trail of the electric buses but Route 903 is important to this pilot program because it's the largest orbital bus rote in the southern hemisphere.	~ Partial
Premier of Victoria	Government press release	Government press release	~ Mentions the 903 as part of some new electric buses	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this assessment. These bus routes are government run, so the Department of Transport, Public Transport Victoria, and the Premier of Victoria are in no way independent as asserted in this source assessment table. The Bus and Coach article mentions route 903. It's a single sentence; two if we are being very generous and that is hardly rising to even partial significant coverage. Moovit is a bus route and schedule. The site is a directory of such routes. There is nothing unknown about whether it contributes to notability. It flat out does not. The only source that moves the notability bar a smidge is the Driven article.

This is what the source assessment table should look like setting aside all the sources you skipped.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Department of Transport	Government Website	Government Website	Only notes that the line is there and a quick blur about it and the other lines	✘ No
The Driven	Coverage of this article and of others appears to be independent. There is invited content but it's labeled and there is a transparent policy on this as well as the cost for advertising in their newsletter	Most coverage on the site is reviews about EVs but there are also articles with coverage on topics around EVs and the community	~ The article is only about the bus route and the electric buses on it	~ Partial
Kinetic	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Although there is talk about them taking over the bus system there is no mention of the line	✘ No
Public Transport Victoria	Government Website	Government Website	The information it provides is accurate but it is not targeted at this line or a group of lines near it	✘ No
Moovit	Mobility as a service company owned by intel, reposting public information	Can't really tell other than this is just the site for an app	Site is a directory	✘ No
Australasian Bus and Coach	Appears to be an industry publication but other articles appear balanced	Includes a named author and interviews with the managing director of Transdev	Just a mention	✘ No
Premier of Victoria	Government press release	Government press release	Mentions the 903 as part of some new electric buses	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted there were seven sources Special:Diff/1117716600. Unless I've missed something here, if so if you could please show me so I would greatly appreciate it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the timestamps. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the table was published post I have added additional sources including 2 pages from an independant victorian transport article. In addition the original kinetic article posted was to back up the was there to back up the section "Since 31 January 2022, this route has been operated by bus operator Kinetic Melbourne." NotOrrio (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also it is possible to use news articles to back up the information collected from kinetic NotOrrio (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you added is useful for establishing notability, Some guy's blog isn't a reliable source, and Kinetic is contracted to run this bus route so is not an independent source. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to SmartBus, the article fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Bus timetables are not an acceptable sources and Kinetic is a primary source.Dan arndt (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a bus timetable is a reliable sorce for determing what stops the bus route serves, to back it up for there were two sources for this a primary source (PTV) and a secondary Source (Moovit) NotOrrio (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know one of the arguments to avoid using in deletion is to not mention other articles but I want to show that stop information used as a source for where the bus serves is the norm for wikipeida bus route pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Buses_route_1&direction=next&oldid=983282445 uses the source https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/1 for the section current route. NotOrrio (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bus timetables are an acceptable source though it's important to include the date of the timetable as they are subject to change. That being said, they don't help establish notability. But they are an acceptable source. Garuda3 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bus timetables are not independent of the subject, nor are they substantial coverage of it. Basically a list of times and locations. Oaktree b (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr Vulpes' source analysis above. The bus route doesn't have to be the primary topic of an article for it to count as significant coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you agreeing with the assessment that the government responsible for the bus system is an independent source? Which specific articles establish notability and why? -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's... exactly the opposite of what WP:SIGCOV says. Now you're just making stuff up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Department of Transport	Government Website	Government Website	~ Only notes that the line is there and a quick blur about it and the other lines	~ Partial
The Driven	Coverage of this article and of others appears to be independent. There is invited content but it's labeled and there is a transparent policy on this as well as the cost for advertising in their newsletter	Most coverage on the site is reviews about EVs but there are also articles with coverage on topics around EVs and the community	The article is only about the bus route and the electric buses on it	✔ Yes
Kinetic	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Press release from the company that is incharge of putting in the electric buses	Although there is talk about them taking over the bus system there is no mention of the line	✘ No
Public Transport Victoria	Government Website	Government Website	The information it provides is accurate but it is not targeted at this line or a group of lines near it, updated the source kept on redirecting to the ptv timetable page now redirects to the 903 service information page on the ptv website	✔ Yes
Moovit	~ Mobility as a service company owned by intel, reposting public information	Many sources including community feedback suggest that moovit is reliable and uses real time information	Page is only coverage of the 903 route	~ Partial
Australasian Bus and Coach	Appears to be an industry publication but other articles appear balanced	Includes a named author and interviews with the managing director of Transdev	~ This one was hard, the main topic is the trail of the electric buses but Route 903 is important to this pilot program because it's the largest orbital bus rote in the southern hemisphere.	~ Partial
Premier of Victoria	Government press release	Government press release	~ Mentions the 903 as part of some new electric buses , two sources were from this source the second one does have partial coverage as although it doesnt mention the route it does mention the section that was referenced	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have updated Dr_vuples citation table as there was a problem with the ptv source which caused it to redirect to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/timetables/ however it now redirects to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/13690/903-altona-mordialloc/. NotOrri ^(talk) 5:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Smartbus#Routes per Whqp's excellent source analysis. Does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dr Vuples source assesment analysis. Although some sources may not be reliable there are enough reliable sources for this page to be considerd notableNotOrrio (talk) 5:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Just another run of the mill bus route that doesn't require special treatment with its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a topic deserves its own article isnt a justifiable reason to delete or change and article to redirect. If you think that it is by your logic you should also suggest redirect the 100s wikipedia pages that are based on a single bus route. NotOrrio (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a topic deserves its own article is exactly the reason why we would delete or redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. WP:ATD-R says exactly the opposite. You need to learn how our policies and guidelines work. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smartbus#Routes per Whpq's excellent analysis. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Dr vulpes's source assessment table here somewhat. Except for The Driven being WP:SIGCOV, none of the other refs IMHO constitute of significant coverage. Moovit is categorised on their table as WP:SIGCOV, but IMHO is a directory-like database that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. In contrast, the rest are routine listings and a few sentences coverage that are not significant coverage and shouldn't be considered as partial significant coverage (e.g., this is a 5-sentence routine announcement, this mentions the route in a short paragraph while listing other routes). I appreciate the article's creator working on this, but their argument seems to be textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 3 different source assessment tables that aren't in agreement with each other so I'm going to relist this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Government websites aren't independent of the subject and we have no media covering the route. Almost appears promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider a redirect to the Smartbus article where this route is listed? -- Whpq (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SmartBus as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smartbus#Routes Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County Fair (Virginia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. All mentions that come up in the WP:BEFORE search are either passing, routine coverage in local media, or actually pertain to a different Orange County Fair. I'd suggest merging to Orange County, Virginia except the present content is largely trivial: 4-H is part of almost every county fair in the US, and the COVID cancellation material is the same as for any other event in those years. Apocheir (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fate of the Children

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally boldly redirected this to Ian Irvine following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Worlds Cycle, however after further research I cannot find any evidence that anything every came of this once-upcoming book series, so it probably doesn't even warrant a mention there and a deletion is necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Unsourced, fails WP:GNG, my WP:BEFORE search did not find sources contributing to notability. VickKiang (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RfD might have been appropriate, but I appreciate the added scrutiny of AfD. In a brief search, I do not see any evidence that the book was ever written--I get plenty of 2011-13 hits indicating that it was planned, but nothing since and nothing indicating it was ever started, let alone completed. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arguments to keep are not based in policy, article has already been transwikied and as such the history has already been preserved. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Magic: the Gathering Standard (Type II)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass of poorly-sourced fancruft (despite the large number of references, every single source is primary). This sort of thing is much better suited to fan wikis than general-interest wikis like Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be mostly maintained by a single individual, who made a Reddit post in response to this deletion notice, arguing in favor of keeping it. Their argument seems to just boil down to "I worked hard on it, so keep it because I want to", which is not actually addressing the issues that the article presents. Additionally, they have copy+pasted the text of the article over to the MTG Wiki on FANDOM, and so there is no longer any need to have it here. --172.88.48.178 (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair if I thought the article I spent a lot of time on would get deleted then I would keep a backup some where too and why not put it on another wiki since it seems likely to me this will get deleted. Maxinfet (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the argument used by that single individual to keep it (which is a bad one) and it's existence elsewhere are irrelevant to the decision of whether to keep it. The article should be judged on it's quality and relevancy, not on the quality of the arguments used by a single person, even if that's the person who wrote it. As for a duplicate existing on another Wiki, Wikipedia's aim isn't to document only what doesn't exist elsewhere.

But note that this comment I'm writing isn't an argument to keep. I'm abstaining from that as my familiarity with Wikipedia's policy isn't good enough. I'm simply arguing that the reasons in the comment I'm replying to aren't good. Davide (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has fan implications doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is always the first stop for people interested in stuff. Don't take that away from them 71.218.105.52 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree. This is the equivalent of having a wikipedia page giving a detail explanation of all pokemons. We have fandom wikis for a reason. This guy has no offered a reason to keep it other than being mad because someone wants to delete a thing he willingly invested hours in. Nobody forced him to do it so that's not a valid reason. My vote is for an inmediate deletion 131.0.198.193 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Keep you guys are wiki dicks, wikipedia has like unlimited space, what does it matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:180:2610:1537:9B6E:873B:630B (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm an admin over on the relevant fan wiki, where yes, the primary author has begun the process of porting their work. I expect that this discussion will pass, although you may see some community members coming over from Reddit to say their piece. I've worked to describe WP's process and policies to the Reddit community, but if someone more acclimated to this culture wants to contribute to the thread, it might be enlightening.

My only quibble, @Pppery, is that it would be more neutral and welcoming to choose a word less loaded than "cruft" to describe an editor's work. Whether that work belongs on Wikipedia or not, and regardless of the quality of their output, it costs us very little to respect their effort. Jrcollins (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is the standard term for this, not intended as an insult. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does this not follow the precedence for other sports on this site? It seems that other sports list their rules changes and history as well as keep a general rules page then more specific rules pages. Here are some examples of baseball rules pages, it looks to me like they keep some generic history and then there are more specific pages which would be in line with keeping a Magic the Gathering general history then the history of the first tournament format called Standard/Type II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_rules_of_Major_League_Baseball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwritten_rules_of_baseball

I don't know a lot about baseball but there were a lot more I could have linked to and I would imagine other sports are the same. I understand Magic the Gathering is missing the pedigree that baseball has but where is the line drawn; how many years old does Magic need to be before we are allowed to keep our history here of an individual format? Maxinfet (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the second of those articles does not contain such a list, whereas the third one is based on significantly higher-quality sources than this timeline is. The first of those articles is not at all comparable; it's about a specific rule in Tort Law, which as far as I can tell has no relation whatsoever to Magic: The Gathering cards. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason they could not have compiled a list of rules changes for baseball like the person maintaining this article has, I would argue that for Magics history of the Standard format this was the ideal way to present the information.

I was not trying to make a case that the articles were exactly the same in their presentation and format or even their content. I was trying to point out that sports the same structure of having a document about their rules then get more specifically into their rules of leagues or even into the laws that back their leagues since the US has a interesting relationship with their baseball league and the legal system. Sorry about my bad communication and admittedly my examples were not great.

Let me try to explain myself better and I appreciate your patients given that I imagine a lot of people came from reddit like I did and are probably giving non-constructive criticism. I was trying to liken MTG rules and a page about Standard/Type II history to how we have Baseball wiki pages on Baseball overall and then how we have a article on Major League Baseball which gets into a more specific league. I should have chosen my sources better, what I was trying to show with those 3 sources if just how deep it drills down past the two levels Magic the Gather has of Magic: The Gathering and Timeline of Magic: the Gathering Standard (Type II). Sorry for the bad communication there and I do appreciate you taking the time to read my post also I am new to moderation on the platform so I really appreciate the link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that answers my implied question about precedent. I should also mention this is not me trying to convince you with a more clear version of my argument since the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems pretty clear, I just wanted to clarify my argument even if it was not correct. Maxinfet (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to extend your baseball analogy to magic, you're looking for Magic: The Gathering rules, which has survived several deletion discussions and I recently rewrote to be based almost entirely on secondary sources, or Magic: The Gathering formats. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw the Magic: The Gathering rules when writing my initial post and I agree it makes more sense to use that. Also I edited my post and just noticed your response but just wanted to clarify that my response was not trying to argue for keep any more I was just trying to clarify my argument even though the link you gave me for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shows that the argument isn't sound. Just curious could some of the information in this page be moved to Magic: The Gathering formats and is their a good guideline page that you would suggest for that? I am not thinking about the entire chart but there are some interesting points in the list that if they are not in the Magic: The Gathering formats would be good to preserve, for example like the rules changes to companions just because of how rare an errata like that is. Maxinfet (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The companion mechanic is already discussed at Magic: The Gathering formats#Vintage. One could also justify adding it to List of Magic: The Gathering keywords, where it's currently missing entirely, and discussing the rules change there (although I think List of Magic: The Gathering keywords should also be deleted, and the only reason I haven't AfD-ed it is that it survived several deletion discussions in the past). But you should rely on secondary sources discussing the mechanic (of which there are plenty, such as this) not the banlists themselves to make that point, so there's nothing really to move.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the reasons given for deletion is this articles reliance on primary sources, which even a cursory reading of WP:PRIMARY shows is ridiculous — the guideline exists to discourage the *novel interpretation* of primary sources, which plainly does not apply to an article that consists only of a timeline of factual events. The bare URLs complaint is easily addressed; I'm happy to do it myself in the event that the page is kept. And the "excessive intricate detail" complaint is pretty silly in the face of plenty of other Wikipedia content; humorously, a delete voter above said this would be like keeping a page of detailed explanations of Pokémon, which is content that absolutely already exists — note that in addition to this enormous table, every single one of the 905 listed Pokémon is linked to a page covering its generation, with, indeed, a significantly more detailed explanation of what it does than anything on this page. Personman (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and you're missing the clause Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Can we please have more substantive arguments and less responses to off-wiki canvassing? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as too detailed and too primary-source heavy for Wikipedia. (Canvassing disclaimer: saw the Reddit post asking people to come here and vote keep.) That said, there is information here that is Wikipedia-worthy that can and should be moved to other articles on Wikipedia if User:Phlounder is up for helping out the MTG Wikiproject. For example, all of the information on bans is often relevant to bring up elsewhere and has valid secondary coverage. The Kaladesh and Throne of Eldraine articles could certainly use more content discussing the large number of banned cards from those sets, when they happened, the fan reaction to the bans, and so on. This might be a more productive use of the sources gathered by the OP than this kind of chart? SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the primary author of this page. I concede defeat, I have moved the page to mtgwiki, a fan wiki. I will not be updating it here anymore, so you may as well delete it. There are arguments for and against keeping it on Wikipedia that both make sense to me, but I'm not interested in the effort of defending it at this point. As a casual Wikipedia user, I was not fully versed in all of Wikipedia's policies and standards, and indeed, as this page got longer and longer I struggled to keep up with Wikipedia's formatting and documentation requirements. However, please note that in the zeal to make Wikipedia a place with more exacting standards of what belongs and what doesn't - you are creating a knowledgebase defined by gatekeepery diehards and excluding many who might help keep the site alive in the future. I will never donate to Wikipedia ever again. The lesson I have learned is that small businesses and local artists are insufficiently notable and timelines of product releases lack correct sources. My vision of Wikipedia is more inclusive but people like to gatekeep - so I'm out. Enjoy your exclusive community. I don't even know how to signoff correctly, maybe this will suffice: --* Phlounder * 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The people who are "gatekeeping" are volunteers and thus not the same as the people who get the donations, so this threat isn't as effective as you think it is. Per my comment above, there is *plenty* of work to be done on MTG articles on Wikipedia that won't attract any deletion discussions at all. You are still welcome to contribute - despite your statements, we are a pretty welcoming and inclusive community, and you just had the bad luck that your major contribution fit better in fan wikis than here. We aren't being "exclusive" because we hate you personally or something - in fact, it's an impressive piece of work that is a good sign you could be a solid Wikipedia editor, just that doesn't change that it is content better suited for fan wikis than Wikipedia. If you ever change your mind and want to contribute to Wikipedia in a way that won't attract a deletion discussion, you'll find that the community you perceive as exclusive is actually pretty chill and would be happy to help you out - just ask before you start on such a big project. SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I would rather that folks be WP:BOLD. I don't think Phlounder erred in starting this page; we simply face the tragedy that they worked on it for five years before anyone else thought to question its inclusion. For three years, it was linked in the game's navbox template, on hundreds of pages, without complaint. I'm not arguing for keeping it. I'm trying to suggest that there were more respectful ways of opening this discussion. Jrcollins (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I might be a huge fan of Magic (hell, I named myself after a character in the game), but this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really do respect the effort that goes into making and maintaining a page like this, and I understand that when you put a lot of work into something, it can be heartbreaking to have it nominated for not meeting inclusion criteria. This isn't a judgement of the content! Wikipedia's goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to have all the knowledge under the sun. These criteria are way to understand what fits into that goal—what types of articles belong on Wikipedia, as opposed to another wiki project. Indiscriminate lists and directories of information that don't otherwise have clear encyclopedic value on their own are among the things that have been determined to not fit best here. This isn't because we hate them, and it doesn't matter if people find them useful.

As for inclusivity, this isn't about any editor. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but that is what editing is: contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold, add pages, write content, but understand that you don't own it. This isn't a site that hosts a bunch of individual editor's articles, it's something more than that—an encyclopedia that is ultimately built by all of us. Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep us on the same page about what this site is. They are built by editors through consensus, just like everything else here.

A note to closing admins: I have used pipe links to relevant policies here, instead of directly citing them by short names. I did this to keep the language as clear as possible for editors less familiar with the policy side of Wikipedia, and I'm sorry if this makes it harder to parse. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwicks Shrink Sleeves

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. No significant coverage. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering putting this up for AfD myself when I couldn’t find any appropriate merge or redirect targets. Mccapra (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, partly because the current article is almost entirely a COPYVIO from the timeline on the company's website. Despite its own claim to a long heritage, it seems to have changed its name more than once (it's now called "Chadwicks Lids") and I'm not convinced a packaging company would have hit the general news headlines sufficietly to pass WP:NCORP. Time for it to be wrapped up. Sionk (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venancio Antonio Morín

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to find sources. Being an undefined “military man and politician” could mean anything from corporal and small town city council member to four star*general and mayor of Caracas. No one has bothered to say. BostonMensa (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are pages and pages of Spanish-language sources in Google Books for "Venancio A. Morin". Agree the article could do with attention. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Likely passes WP:GNG, as he has had significant coverage in this source and especially this biography. That is irrelevant, however, as he passes WP:NPOL based on the first source I linked, which states he served in the Venezuelan parliament from 1894 to 1897/8 ("After the elections for the constitutional term from 1894 to 1898, General Morín was elected Deputy to Congress for the state of Miranda"). Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction; the first source I linked appears to be partially a copy of the book. However, it does not copy the entire book, only portions, and it does appear to have some original content. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuela Tuya's page credits Eduardo Morín Brea as the source of the information, linking to an email address. Judging by the name, it could be a relative of the subject. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article sees at least a bit of improvement, delete (without prejudice against recreation if somebody's willing to put in more effort) if it doesn't. What's here now certainly isn't enough, and while it might be improvable it's far, far too common for articles that get kept on WP:NEXIST grounds to just never actually see the desired improvement at all, so that they just remain in an inadequate state and then get renominated a second time by some other user who's not familiar with the context of the first discussion. I'm also concerned, to some extent, by the fact that there isn't an article about him on the Spanish Wikipedia, where you would very much expect an article about a genuinely notable Venezuelan politician to be found — and, in fact, an article about him has previously been deleted there. To be fair, that appears to have been on copyvio grounds rather than fundamental non-notability grounds, but it still gives me pause that no Spanish-speaking editor has ever been arsed to try again. I obviously don't think we need to get this all the way to FA-status before I can be convinced to keep, but it does need to at least state something that would actually constitute a notability claim rather than just being "subject is a person who existed, the end" as it is right now. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping to offer some insight, although I thank Curbon7 for starting before. I found a biography in Venezuela Tuya (see entry in WP:VENRS). The biography describes that he reached the rank of general and participated in the Federal War and the Legalist Revolution, two of the main conflicts in Venezuela in the late 19st century, as well helping to quell uprisings. Likewise, it specifies that he served as regional deputy, councilman in Guárico state, civilian chief (which I assume is the period's equivalent of a mayor) and congressman, as well as being appointed as member of the Guzmán Blanco state [es] Supreme Court. All of these merits point at that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN.

What I'm concerned about is how difficult I've had it to find other online sources, including in the Polar Foundation History Dictionary, whose content Venezuela Tuya usually copies, which is needed for WP:GNG. I would personally lean to keep the article and to be more lenient in this regard, considering that this is a historical figure, and focus on bibliographical material if possible. Manuel Landaeta Rosales [es] is one of the historians that seem to have written about him, already mentioned above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know it means minimal standards as politician? The article stares politician. That could be school board member or mayor of a town of 1500 people. If you know something more, I insist you add it to the the article with a verifiable reference. In like people who refused when I said that in the past and adamantly disagreed with me, a major point of Wiki is to collaboeate and share information, not keep it to yourself. BostonMensa (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the information to myself is literally the opposite of what I did. I can offer the original quotes in Spanish and their respective English translations, but all of the information that I mentioned can be found in the source offered above, whose link in the article I have fixed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but expand) as a historical figure and leading revolutionary. Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Taung Tan (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Might I add that this article has been around for many years and no one has has expanded it beyond one very sad sentence. I agree on the surface, the subject has potential but based simply on what the article says, we are at best guessing. If no one has done anything in all these years, I Would be surprised I’d anyone did. I agree with the previous editor that said delete without prejudice or even sent to draft status and have an experienced editor sign off on it. BostonMensa (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I want to add, the one reference doesn’t even work so what little there is to verify, I can’t. BostonMensa (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification is actually not a bad idea. I can't work on it at the moment, but I can toss it into my promising drafts pile and get to it eventually. Curbon7 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the national library would help find offline sources. Taung Tan (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably draftification is the right approach based on the state of the article. That said, the source found by Curbon7 is significant and shows that subject does pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what source you are talking about since when I look at the article, it is still the same dead end link that was there a few hours ago. It would be really nice if the editor took the five or so minutes to update the article with the new source so everyone could see it. BostonMensa (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article needs expansion. Yes, the source found by Curbon7 is significant. I am not able to easily incorporate the source into the article because I do not have the time to translate from spanish. - Enos733 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expanded, but Draftify if there is no additions to the article. The subject is notable, but this should be more than a one-line stub. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL and my comment above. The article has been expanded from its original version, pinging @BostonMensa, Shellwood, Curbon7, Bearcat, Taung Tan, Enos733, and GPL93: I'm still concerned about the overrealiance in a single source, but the merits should be enough for its inclusion. I imagine that the relative obscurity of the subject can be attributed due to its localized importance in the state. However, in a region where the capital cities are usually favored over the countryside, I think that it's even more important to strive for this type of representation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Amazing work. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! Please feel free to make any corrections, given that English is not my first language. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thank you. Very nice amd impressive improvement. Nice thing to see when I first wake up. BostonMensa (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Narkus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He competed at the 1992 Summer Olympics but did not win a medal. A WP:BEFORE search did not bring up sufficient evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lithuania. Suonii180 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.